On
January 12, 2017, Plaintiff Michael Deshawn Smith, who is
incarcerated at the Morgan County Correctional Complex in
Wartburg, Tennessee, filed a pro se complaint
pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and a motion to proceed
in forma pauperis. (ECF Nos. 1 & 2.) The
complaint concerns events that allegedly occurred while Smith
was incarcerated at the West Tennessee State Penitentiary
(WTSP) in Henning, Tennessee. (ECF No. 1 at PageID 2.) After
Smith submitted the required financial documents, the Court
issued an order granting leave to proceed in forma
pauperis and assessing the civil filing fee pursuant to
the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA), 28 U.S.C.
§§ 1915(a)-(b). (ECF No. 6.) Smith also twice moved
to serve summons and his complaint on the Defendants. (ECF
Nos. 8 & 9.) The Court denied those motions. (ECF No.
11.) The Clerk shall record the Defendants as Nurse Ashley
Hurdle, Sergeant Nathan Coleman, and Mental Health
Administrator Nicova Tyus.

Smith
alleges that on February 9, 2016, he was taken for a medical
examination and first seen by Nurse Hurdle. (ECF No. 1 at
PageID 3.) Smith asked Hurdle if he could speak with someone
from the mental health unit because he sought medication for
suicidal thoughts he had been having. (Id.) Hurdle
told Smith she would have him moved to seclusion, but Smith
“told her that I was OK, I'll just wait to see
Mental Health when I get shipped.”
(Id.)[1] As Smith was leaving after seeing the
doctor, he was called back to speak with a mental health
nurse, who asked Smith if he was feeling suicidal or having
suicidal thoughts at that moment. (Id.) Smith
replied that he was not, nor was he having any thoughts of
harming himself. (Id. at PageID 3-4.) Smith
explained the conversation he had with Hurdle and her comment
that he should be sent to seclusion. (Id. at PageID
3.) The mental health nurse concluded that seclusion was not
warranted and gave Smith a pass to speak with the mental
health unit again the next morning. (Id. at PageID
4.)

As
Smith left the medical unit, Nurse Hurdle allegedly commented
to him, “You would not need any medication if all
ya'll half breeds were not fucked up in the head.”
(Id.) Smith alleges Hurdle further told him that he
“‘should have been placed in seclusion and that
she was going to call Mrs. Tyus,' who is the Mental
Health Administrator.” (Id.) Smith alleges
that two hours later, two corrections officers came to his
cell and told him to pack his property because he was
“going to Medical for a few days.” (Id.)
When Smith asked whose decision it was to place him in
seclusion he was told that “Nashille [sic] had me
placed in there.” (Id. at PageID 5.) Smith was
placed in seclusion and told to remove his clothing.
(Id. at PageID 4.) When he refused, seven to eight
corrections officers allegedly stripped Smith of his clothes,
which he alleges made him feel like he “was being
sexually assaulted and was a traumatic experience.”
(Id. at PageID 4-5.)

Smith
alleges that Nurse Hurdle is not a mental health nurse and
that her actions in sending him to seclusion were meant to
discriminate against and harass him. (Id. at PageID
5.) He alleges that Hurdle “planned and carried
out” her “act of harassment, motivated by her
racial bias.” (Id.)

Smith
was released from seclusion on February 11, 2016, after
speaking with a nurse practitioner, who allegedly told Smith
he “would of never had [Smith] placed in there.”
(Id. at PageID 6.) Smith went to retrieve his
property but was told he had none to retrieve. (Id.)
Among his property were legal documents that Smith alleges
were “essential to a pending appeal.”
(Id. at PageID 7.) Smith alleges that Defendant
Coleman destroyed his property in retaliation after he bit
Coleman while the corrections officers were removing his
clothes before he was put in seclusion. (Id. at
PageID 6-7.) Smith filed a claim for his property with the
Tennessee Division of Claims but has not received a response.
(Id. at PageID 7.) He alleges he has received
disciplinary charges for assault and defiance based on his
actions while being sent to seclusion. (Id.) He also
alleges his security classification increased because of his
time in segregation. (Id.)

Smith
seeks compensatory and punitive damages against each
Defendant. (Id. at PageID 10.)

The
Court is required to screen prisoner complaints and to
dismiss any complaint, or any portion thereof, if the
complaint-

(1) is frivolous, malicious, or fails to state a claim upon
which relief may be granted; or

(2) seeks monetary relief from a defendant who is immune from
such relief.

28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b); see also 28 U.S.C. §
1915(e)(2)(B).

In
assessing whether the complaint in this case states a claim
on which relief may be granted, the standards under
Fed.R.Civ.P. 12(b)(6), as stated in Ashcroft v.
Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677-79 (2009), and in Bell
Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555-57 (2007),
are applied. Hill v. Lappin, 630 F.3d 468, 470-71
(6th Cir. 2010). The Court accepts the complaint's
“well-pleaded” factual allegations as true and
then determines whether the allegations “plausibly
suggest an entitlement to relief.'” Williams v.
Curtin, 631 F.3d 380, 383 (6th Cir. 2011) (quoting
Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 681). Conclusory allegations
“are not entitled to the assumption of truth, ”
and legal conclusions “must be supported by factual
allegations.” Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 679. Although
a complaint need only contain “a short and plain
statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled
to relief, ” Fed.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), Rule 8 nevertheless
requires factual allegations to make a
“‘showing,' rather than a blanket assertion,
of entitlement to relief.” Twombly, 550 U.S.
at 555 n.3.

Our website includes the first part of the main text of the court's opinion.
To read the entire case, you must purchase the decision for download. With purchase,
you also receive any available docket numbers, case citations or footnotes, dissents
and concurrences that accompany the decision.
Docket numbers and/or citations allow you to research a case further or to use a case in a
legal proceeding. Footnotes (if any) include details of the court's decision. If the document contains a simple affirmation or denial without discussion,
there may not be additional text.

Buy This Entire Record For
$7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.